WTC 7 Nist Report

[Arus808]

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6595/703b6eda63c4.jpg


A member that im debating says that the above graphic as shown by NIST proves that the WTC 7 report is nothing but a sham and filled with erroneous conclusions.

Can someone provide a better explanation as to why NIST modeled it this way?

[UNLoVedRebel]

You must be bored tonight.

[Arus808]

Also he poses repeats question:

I am asking for one single instance of definitive proof that it was fire and impacts alone (caused the towers to collapse)

for someone who is claiming to have read the NIST reports and several papers on the Effects of Fire on steel, he surely is oversimplifying what happened on 9/11/2001

[WilliamSeger]

The NIST FEA model did not include the "curtain wall" exteriors because they were non-load-bearing and therefore irrelevant to the cause of the collapse, which is all NIST was attempting to study. Reading the report, it seems they had to do a lot of simplification to get their model down to a barely-manageable 3 million elements. But curtain walls are so called because they hang from the building, not because they are flimsy: Curtain walls need to be rigid enough to transfer a lot of wind load to the floors and columns. In WTC7, they were apparently rigid enough to hold the building's box shape when the interior structure collapsed. In the NIST model, however, there wasn't anything to hold the model's shape except the beam-to-column connections, so the columns twisted around quite a bit when the interior collapsed and the whole thing started to fall. By that point in the collapse sequence, it's an insignificant detail.

[Par]

Also he poses repeats question:I am asking for one single instance of definitive proof that it was fire and impacts alone (caused the towers to collapse) for someone who is claiming to have read the NIST reports and several papers on the Effects of Fire on steel, he surely is oversimplifying what happened on 9/11/2001


Well, he’s committing a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. By asking for proof it was fire/impacts alone, he’s saying “prove it wasn’t bombs as well”. It’s akin to a creationist saying “show me proof God wasn’t involved in any way”.

[RedIbis]

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6595/703b6eda63c4.jpg


A member that im debating says that the above graphic as shown by NIST proves that the WTC 7 report is nothing but a sham and filled with erroneous conclusions.

Can someone provide a better explanation as to why NIST modeled it this way?

The modeled it that way because the observable video and fires wouldn't produce the collapse the way those graphics suggest.

[funk de fino]

The modeled it that way because the observable video and fires wouldn't produce the collapse the way those graphics suggest.

Post #4. Read and comprehend.

[Dave Rogers]

Post #4. Read and comprehend.

He's idealogically incapable of either.

Dave

[RedIbis]

He's idealogically incapable of either.

Dave

I comprehend quite well that Post #4 is suggesting that the difference between NIST's graphics and reality is an insignificant detail. Tis each his own.

[Edx]

-----

[bardamu]

A member that im debating says that the above graphic as shown by NIST proves that the WTC 7 report is nothing but a sham and filled with erroneous conclusions.

It's a sham because it's clear from the videos that the four corners dropped in unison.

[BigAl]

It's a sham because it's clear from the videos that the four corners dropped in unison.

So what? The "corners" were not structural for the purposes of holding the building up.

[Gorgonian]

Am I mistaken in thinking that those graphics are from the simulation that was done without any impact damage taken into account, and that they did a separate simulation with impact damage taken into account that doesn't buckle and twist much at all?

[Dave Rogers]

It's a sham because it's clear from the videos that the four corners dropped in unison.

Is it really? Point me to a single video that shows all four corners of WTC7 at collapse initiation.

Dave

[Newtons Bit]

The NIST FEA model did not include the "curtain wall" exteriors because they were non-load-bearing and therefore irrelevant to the cause of the collapse, which is all NIST was attempting to study. Reading the report, it seems they had to do a lot of simplification to get their model down to a barely-manageable 3 million elements. But curtain walls are so called because they hang from the building, not because they are flimsy: Curtain walls need to be rigid enough to transfer a lot of wind load to the floors and columns. In WTC7, they were apparently rigid enough to hold the building's box shape when the interior structure collapsed. In the NIST model, however, there wasn't anything to hold the model's shape except the beam-to-column connections, so the columns twisted around quite a bit when the interior collapsed and the whole thing started to fall. By that point in the collapse sequence, it's an insignificant detail.

:confused::confused::confused:

I hope you're not saying what I think you're saying.

A curtain wall system is attached directly to the building at intervening floors (sometimes every floor, sometimes every other, etc, it depends on the system). It moves exactlywith the beams that it is attached to. These do provide additional shear and torsional (but not gravity) stiffness to the structure, as do the interior partition walls. NIST didn't model these elements and thus the building is going to rotate more in their model than in reality.

It is, however, a stretch to say that the exterior curtain walls would keep their shape while the interior structures moves. That's just not possible.

[Dave Rogers]

It is, however, a stretch to say that the exterior curtain walls would keep their shape while the interior structures moves. That's just not possible.

That's certainly not how I read WilliamSeger's post. He wasn't suggesting that the curtain walls kept their shape while the interior structure moved, he was suggesting that the complete structure of interior beams and columns plus curtain walls was more rigid, in the real collapse, than NIST's simplified structure of beams and columns only was in the modelled collapse.

Dave

[Newtons Bit]

That's certainly not how I read WilliamSeger's post. He wasn't suggesting that the curtain walls kept their shape while the interior structure moved, he was suggesting that the complete structure of interior beams and columns plus curtain walls was more rigid, in the real collapse, than NIST's simplified structure of beams and columns only was in the modelled collapse.

Dave

Oh goody. This is one time I'd like to be wrong ;)

[Sunray Breaker]

Not to mention if it were thermite, the collapse would have not only happened a lot sooner but the core columns (which stood momentarily after the parimeter collapsed) we're not covered in "molten metal" as the truthers seem to think it would be...And it would be, we're it thermite.

Also, if it were explosions it would have shook everyone to their core and been undeniably audible on virtually every video recording, but it's not.

You guys are beating a soiled patch of dirt, that had a dead horse on it 5 years ago.

[WilliamSeger]

That's certainly not how I read WilliamSeger's post. He wasn't suggesting that the curtain walls kept their shape while the interior structure moved, he was suggesting that the complete structure of interior beams and columns plus curtain walls was more rigid, in the real collapse, than NIST's simplified structure of beams and columns only was in the modelled collapse.

Dave

Yes, that is what I meant. If you look at the animation of the NIST model, it's the corners that deform first, followed by the rest of the wall. At the very least, the curtain walls would make those corners much more rigid which would tend to hold the box shape, much more so than the NIST model.

[twinstead]

You guys are beating a soiled patch of dirt, that had a dead horse on it 5 years ago.

more like a section of air 10 feet above a spot where a mountain once stood but had eroded to the current ground level 80 million years ago that had a soiled patch of dirt that had a dead mammal that would eventually evolve into a horse on it.